From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 334 active users here.



New skin, "MinervaNeue"[edit]

For those who were brave enough to test the new skin, "MinervaNeue" and stuck in the nowhere because the hamburger menu is not working, click the center button of the mouse on the same hamburger menu and this may, or may not, gives access to one's Preferences where you can revert the skin. Also, some features used with Vector do not work with this new skin. — Ineuw talk 23:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that you can also go to to make it use vector (just for that page load). Sam Wilson 00:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Think that I may have been misunderstood. When switching /Preferences/Appearance to "MinervaNeue" (from Vector), I lost access to my Preferences. Just clicking on the hamburger should have brought up my list of options, but it didn't. It took awhile to access them by opening them in a new tab. — Ineuw talk 04:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Free BabelPad editor for Windows[edit] are the folks who gave us BabelMap, the free Unicode character picker, is now offering a simple and free Unicode text editor known as BabelPad. This may or may not be very useful for here, but there are a number of editors from non-English wikis where this could me useful. i.e. Arabic, Thai, Chinese, Bengali, etc. . . . — Ineuw talk 23:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is particularly new software, but thank you for reminding everyone of it. It is especially useful because the name in Unicode of the character on the cursor is displayed at the bottom of the window, which is not true of any other piece of software with which I am familiar. Mahir256 (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


Proposal to allow "fair use" in certain limited scenarios[edit]

There have been a few discussions lately about "fair use" on enWS. I think there is one specific scenario in which "fair use" should be acceptable: if a work is released under an acceptable license, but contains some non-free text (or other media) under "fair use" (or with explicit permission of the copyright holder), we should be able to include that text or other media as part of the entire work that has been released freely.


  1. It is not always possible to determine that a selection from a free text is actually a non-free citation included under "fair use".
  2. If an author can release a work under a free license even though it contains "fair use" selections, we should be able to host it even though it contains "fair use" selections.

Example: Green Eggs and Ham is the usual example of a nonfree work that has been published under a free license by a third party under "fair use", as it was included in the congressional record after someone read it out loud in congress. While it would be unacceptable to host Green Eggs and Ham as a work on its own, we could (possibly) host the congressional records under a free license, and my proposal above would simply suggest that we don't need to censor the section that quotes the nonfree work.

Example: The Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA) almost certainly contains translations of religious texts that are non-free. Can you identify these passages?

Anyway, this is just something I was thinking of that might be acceptable, and so I though I'd bring it up. @Slowking4: this discussion will interest you. I think your idea of what "fair use" should be acceptable is broader than what I suggested above, but this discussion or a sub-discussion could be the place for that as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: You may wish to explain how this is different from, or if in fact it is, simply being a textual equivalent of c:Commons:De minimis. Mahir256 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mahir256: This proposal is different from de minimis. De minimis is usually so trivial as to cause no violation of copyright law. It is basically an uploader's defense, no site policy required. This proposal is more in the line of Exemption Doctrine Policy (1, 2). EDP is applicable to identifiable non-free content within a free content, but an EDP rationale is mandatory within the license tag. Hrishikes (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to explore the issue where the copyright of an included work is vague or unknown, I am not comfortable with reproducing a work known to be within copyright, and the example provided pushes me straight away. The publishing of the congressional record should not be a reason for us to reproduce the work "Green Eggs and Ham". Our reproducing of the parent is not enhanced with GE&H, and the CR would be as worthy with that component redacted. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little unsure about that example as well. The Congressional Record can be a bit of a mess, with a lot of random stuff read into it, but GE&H is easy to locate and remove and not particularly relevant.
Let me place an example on the table. The NTSB report for the crash of Korean Air Flight 801 on Guam. Page 6 is labeled "Instrument approach chart for the Guam International Airport runway 6L ILS procedure. Reproduced with the permission of Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION." Pages 16 & 17 are diagrams of the captain's and first officer's instrumentation panels, courtesy of Boeing. Page 35 is another instrument approach chart from Jeppesen, compared against the one on page 6 on the next page. Page 106 is a half-page graph, courtesy of Boeing, et la. That's the complete list of marked non-free works in a 212 page report. Having to leave those out would certainly discourage me from working on it. Is this something we want to support, that we feel we can claim as fair use?--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that nonfree text that is included in a free text with permission, as in your example, should definitely be hostable. That's not really "fair use" though is it? It's more like a license from the cited text's author to allow that portion of the text to be published in the containing work under its license. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
the "instrument approach chart" is typically copyrighted, and so is a case for the fair use proposal. large blocks of quoted text (more than de minimus) may be used by others without permission under a fair use rubric, and so another case to adopt the proposal. (i.e. in general no one gives permission to Congress to license their testimony under a PD-gov). we could adopt an EDP for "texts that are part of the public record, not commercially available" to avoid the "full green eggs and ham" straw man.
see also Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2014-05#Dealing_with_non-free_images_in_transcriptions_of_freely_licensed_works Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2016-10#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy_.28EDP.29, and Wikisource:Copyright policy Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I have an example that may be relevant to this case, though yes, I wouldn’t call it fair use either. Have a look at Internet Health Report v.0.1. The entire work is released under CC BY-SA 3.0 but there is a caveat in the license text that says "excluding portions of content attributed to third parties." So I guess the text can be included here as long as we included these third party attributions as it appears in the text, couldn’t it? Ciridae (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The issue about fair use is infringing on the rights of authors to direct their copyright, so if it is a snippet or lower quality (per enWP) component of a work included in another and that is how it is published, then to me that would seem more reasonable. If it is a complete work, or a high quality reproduction, or not meeting the author's intent, then I do not think that it is okay. Remembering that we allow people to take our works and sell them as long as they maintain our licensing requirements. Writing that as a policy statement is problematic, and is always going to be needing adjudication, and that will suck IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
in the "UN Internet Health Report" example on page 4, you find a cover of the economist magazine. this is clearly fair use (surprised it has not been deleted already). this is another example that the EDP images proposal would allow here. we very well could host texts for scholarly reuse, but choose not to out of concern for the profits of others. it is a disagreement about the mission.
do you want to limit the image size? the images of page scans are notoriously small size, and not a replacement for the original. - i am not a big fan of the english image size reduction. i see a stream of downsizing from 60 kbytes to 20 kbytes, it is a distinction without a difference, and it clouds the image provenance.
"meeting the author's intent" when a snippet gets quoted / pasted, that is a transformative reuse, different from the original author’s intent - also we had a presentation at wikiconUSA from people who specifically make parody works, with a legal department - they have an unbeaten record in federal court defending fair use. (author’s intent or parody has not been at issue in the proposals, rather they are about including government / open access documents with copyrighted snippets) Slowking4SvG's revenge 10:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
To sum up the discussion so far:
  • Commons:De minimis is already acceptable
  • Nonfree text included in a free work with author permission is also acceptable (example "Instrument approach chart"), and I'll comment further that this is essentially equivalent to the author releasing the quoted text under the including work's free license; if the including work's license contains a caveat for the included work then this may not be acceptable.
  • The original question regarding fair use in a free work (i.e. with no author permission) has no consensus, with the following perspectives:
    • All quoted works that would constitute "fair use" in the containing work under US law should be hostable (my proposal)
    • Quoted works known to be copyrighted should be removed; works with vague or unknown copyright might be hostable (billinghurst)
    • Quoted works that are copyrighted and commercially available should be removed; other copyrighted quoted works might be hostable (suggested by Slowking4)
    • Complete works and high-quality reproductions should be removed; snippets and lower quality components might be hostable (billinghurst)
The above is just to keep things organized. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that, if the proposal were to pass, we could use a license tag to handle rationale, something like this:

This work is is freely licensed or in the public domain, but contains non-free content. This is okay because:

  1. WS operates under US law, and this content is considered fair use under US law
  2. WS's EDP allows fair use content under certain conditions, see below
  3. WMF allows fair use content under certain conditions, see below


Or something along those lines. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
good summary - i would quibble that "Reproduced with the permission of Jeppesen Sanderson" ≠≠ "releasing the quoted text under the including work's free license"; rather it is what it says: permission to reproduce in the context of the document, and a credit. unknown derivative license. i.e. [1]
i would be happy with any of these versions of an EDP. Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this. The focus seems to be too much on removing obstacles to hosting materials that we as editors would like to host, and not enough on our mission and our consumers. I think we are better off as a site that hosts public domain material, period. Hesperian 01:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hesperian: I think that both focuses lead to the same end result. I want to remove obstacles to hosting public domain material that is within our mission and for the benefit of our consumers. I point again to my examples above, i.e. the Congressional Record and the BCP. Both are public domain material, both are valuable to our consumers and both are within our mission. However, our current policy requires us to censor such works because they contain material that is included as "fair use". WS operates under US copyright law, and under US copyright law it is perfectly acceptable to put a text in the public domain even if it contains material that is "fair use". I want to remote obstacles that prevent WS from hosting these public domain texts. Also: I think that it will help our users and editors: they can trust that if the work is in the public domain, that they can host it here without any further problems. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
So what it comes down to in these unusual cases, is do we
  1. Provide our readers with a complete but encumbered test; or
  2. Provide our readers with a incomplete text that, by by virtue of its incompleteness, qualities as a free cultural work — one that our readers are allowed not only to read, but also change, improve, incorporate, copy, distribute, even commercialize.
In my opinion, option 2 is more in line with our mission.
Hesperian 03:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
If you are giving me one of two choices, then I too will favour 2). I still feel that I fall into something that scores a 1.8, however, if it is binary, you have my opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
it is a blinkered, diminished vision. misstatement of option 1 - i.e, it is "free text with encumbered illustrations, or encumbered block quotes" (that user could redact). all you are doing is moving traffic to institutional transcription sites, where they have control over the works, not commons. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
To move the discussion forward, I'm prepared to grant that one of us has a "blinkered, diminished vision". Also, I'm okay with moving traffic to other sites if that traffic is people looking for non-free material. Hesperian 01:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy with something intermediate such as 1.8 if it can be put into practice. I understand the desire to have our works be completely free in all their parts, as Hesperian mentioned, but again I question the feasibility of it. Using again the example of Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA), which is in the public domain in the USA, I challenge any editor to distinguish with any precision the parts which are original or pre-1923 from the parts that are fair use but copyrighted or UK-URAA. We can actually use this as a case study, if we like: what actions are we as a community willing to do in order to preserve this work in our collection? Option 1 "complete but encumbered" would be just to keep the whole thing, noting that some parts are (probably) copyrighted and included under fair use; option 2 "free cultural work" would be to research every part individually and censor as necessary, a massive undertaking - or to give up and delete the whole thing outright; any approach between the two could be a precedent for a policy on how to handle "fair use". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I have works like that, like the Principia Discordia, but I'm not really comfortable with a work where we think there's significant copyrighted material and we can't clearly identify what is and what isn't clearly public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I notice that the fair use images from Principia Discordia have been deleted from Commons, but hosting them locally along with the second license tag on that page is exactly what I am proposing to allow. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Bot approval requests[edit]

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

Moving file File:AEW Mason--The affair at the Semiramis Hotel.djvu to wikisource[edit]

(I hope this is the right place for the request). I just realized after importing the text to Wikimedia that the author (A E W Mason) is still under copyright as far as Wikimedia is concerned (deathyear 1948 + 70 yrs). Can it be moved to WS? Or, alternatively, be deleted from WS and WM? Thanks —Akme 12:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Akme: To move a file to local, you need to do two things: 1. Upload the file directly to Wikisource. 2. Use the template commons:Template:Copyvio on the file that you uploaded to Commons so that it will be deleted there.
However: are you certain that this text is still under copyright? The rules for Commons are: 1. The file must not be copyright in the United States, and 2. The file must not be copyright in the source country (or countries), where it was first published. This file is not copyrighted in the United States because it was published in 1917. The work was published in New York, so we need to ask: was it published in a different country at the same time, or earlier, than the one you uploaded? I googled the work, and I did not see any information saying it was published elsewhere. Therefore the United States is the only source country. Since it is not copyrighted in the United States, this work meets both rules for hosting on Commons. You do not need to delete or move the file. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks you! Looks like I haven't read the act properly. I didn't know that where the work was first published had a bearing on non-US authors' works. Thanks again :) —Akme 14:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
a cursory search of worldcat [2] indicates new york edition, but not british edition (confused by epublisher showing original date) saved again by the pre-1923 for yanks. as you were. Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Akme: Yes check.svg Done . Please update the file locally, and add {{do not move to Commons|expiry=2019}} — billinghurst sDrewth 08:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Will do, thank you. But I'm really confused now:) — I really thought Beleg Tâl's explanation meant that the file was not under copyright where Commons was concerned. But thank you, anyway. —Akme 08:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Trust deficit for Commons. We host it and in 2019 we move it, no hassles. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Poems of the Great War and Index:Poems of the Great War - Cunliffe.djvu[edit]

I blundered in to working on one anthology, not noticing that there was already a different anthology under the same title. I'm supposing that the existing one should be renamed to Poems of the Great War (Prince of Wales's National Relief Fund) or perhaps Poems of the Great War (1914). I'm willing to do it, provided there's agreement on how it should be done. So far I only have one poem of the Cunliffe anthology transcluded: The Island of Skyros Mudbringer (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Is Khrushchev's secret speech in the public domain or not?[edit]

For reference, here are relevant links pertaining to this discussion.
Beleg Tâl (talk)

This website says that the translation given in it is in the public domain, but apparenly translations of this speech have been deleted over and over again from Wikisource. So can I add this translation to Wikisource or not? --Itsused (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Works that are copyrighted do not become public domain when they are published in the Congressional Record. Their publication in the Congressional Record is considered fair use, but fair use is not an acceptable rationale for hosting a work on Wikisource. The Record itself may be {{PD-US-no-notice}} as suggested by the website you linked to, but that license tag applies only to American works and not to works written in the U.S.S.R. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The translation as such is PD-USGov if it was produced by the State dept., but the translation is a derivative work of the original and so would, for our purposes, inherit the copyright status of the original. The original is for copyright purposes considered to be simultaneously first published in all the former Soviet republics (the "source country" in policy terms), and subject to all the successor states' current copyright laws. For Russia, for example, the term here is effectively pma. 70 (so until 2041). And as a signatory to the international copyright treaties, that means it is covered by copyright in the US as well. So, in other words, no, this work is not suitable for hosting on any Wikimedia project. --Xover (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
yet another example to adopt fair use here. english accepts fair use, it is acceptable for hosting there right now. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a comment: the original text can be found on the Russian Wikisource.--Itsused (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Itsused: Well, then it follows that either they know something we don't, or they have a different policy for this, or they simply haven't noticed that there is an issue. Perhaps you could raise the issue there and report back if any new information comes to light? --Xover (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I left a message on their Scriptorium (Forum) telling them to come here, let's see what happens.--Itsused (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, anyway, that's the copyright notice at the end of the text (О культе личности и его последствиях. Доклад XX съезду КПСС (Н.С. Хрущёв)): Это произведение не является объектом авторского права. В соответствии со статьёй 1259 Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации официальные документы государственных органов и органов местного самоуправления муниципальных образований, в том числе законы, другие правовые акты, решения судов, иные материалы законодательного, административного и судебного характера, официальные документы международных организаций, а также их официальные переводы, государственные символы и знаки, а также символы и знаки муниципальных образований не являются объектами авторских прав.--Itsused (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Via Google Translate: "(On the personality cult and its consequences Report to the XX Congress of the CPSU (NS Khrushchev)): This work is not an object of copyright. In accordance with Article 1259 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, official documents of state bodies and local self-government bodies of municipalities, including laws, other legal acts, court decisions, other legislative, administrative and judicial materials, official documents of international organizations, as well as their official Translations, state symbols and signs, as well as symbols and signs of municipal entities are not subject to copyright."
Can we really consider a "secret speech" to be an official government document? I am highly skeptical of this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
were the Pentagon Papers an official government document? Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The Pentagon Papers were prepared by a government agency. They were declassified and released to the public in 2011. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
so a secret document can be an official government document. and written speeches are held to be copyright-able. is there any reason to confuse secrecy with authorship? Slowking4SvG's revenge 08:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Following the copyright policy of ruWS is not of much use to us. Different wikisources have different local policies on copyright. For example, the various Indic wikisources follow the policy of PD-India, for the safety of editors. Plenty of works of authors who died in 1956 or before are present there, which are PD-India but not PD-US. Pre-1923 works of authors who died after 1956 get deleted there. Plenty of books are also present in Commons, which are PD-India but not PD-US. Commons used to delete them before, but not now. English Wikisource follows the policy of PD-US, so no use delving into what others do. Fair use also is not applicable here. English Wikipedia uses "extracts" of works or "downsized" images as fair use, Wikisource uses full works. Full works cannot be fair use; these should be explicitly copyright-free, and in our case, non-controversially PD-US. Another thing is that any change of copyright policy in the source country after the URAA date does not affect US copyright except in case of separate bilateral agreement; therefore, such copyright changes in source country are not useful to us for assessing the copyright of the original/foreign works. Policy as it stood on URAA date in the source country is to be considered, not the later and current ones. The current policy of the source country is for the wikisource specific to that country's language, not for us. Hrishikes (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I don't think anyone here has suggested enWS should follow ruWS's policy. What I did suggest, however, is that the community on ruWS—by virtue of being closer to the subject matter, the history, and speaks the relevant language natively—may have been in a better position than us to correctly assess the copyright status of this particular work, and that therefore we may be able to use their assessment to determine what action our policy suggest we take.
I am not sure why you so emphasise the URAA date. The last relevant change (aiui) to the Russian copyright terms was in 1993 when the pma. term was extended from 50 to 70 years, and so this was the applicable term on the URAA date.
In any case, the English translation qua translation is PD-US (PD-USGov), so it all boils down to whether the Russian original is PD or not. I can't see that it is, but the ruWS community may have more information or better understanding. --Xover (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
or the culture is more inclusionist. the propensity of defining who we are by what we exclude tends to drive away newcomers. Slowking4SvG's revenge 08:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Khrushchev's speech as document of government body[edit]

Arbitrary break because nesting was getting hard to follow...

So… ruWS asserts that this work, hitherto referred to as a "speech", is exempt from copyright in the Soviet Union and (all) its successor states because it is considered to be some form of official document of a government entity. They do this by reference to Article 1259 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the relevant part of which reads:

6. The following are not objects of copyright:

1) official documents of state bodies and bodies of local government of municipal formations, including statutes, other normative acts, judicial decisions, other materials of a legislative, administrative and judicial nature, official documents of international organizations, and also their official translations;

The question then becomes, can the speech in question be considered an "official document of a state body"?

I can think of three immediate arguments in favour of that position:

  1. In the above copyright assertion, the document is titled "On the personality cult and its consequences Report to the XX Congress of the CPSU (NS Khrushchev)". That looks very much like the "Title—Subtitle (Authoring Entity)" format of any typical government report; any number of which are first, and most officially, presented in the form of a speech to a parliamentary body, even though a printed version makes a lot more sense. In fact, this becomes even clearer when you consider the title page for the 1956 printed edition: "Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress" (with "N. S. Khrushchev" as author). In other words, I think the term "speech" may be misleading here; it could entirely plausibly be a report from the Central Committee (in modern US terms, think "White House"), by Khrushchev in his formal role, to the 20th Congress of the CPSU (modern US, the Congress). In other words, it's no more unusual in that sense than a State of the Union speech in the US, or a Queen's Speech in the UK.
  2. In a lot of jurisdictions (including, aiui, the US and UK; and presumably Russia), even a more typical (scripted/written; not necessarily off-the-cuff remarks) "speech" by a government official, like a minister, is considered an official document of the relevant department or ministry, and so subject to the same copyright terms or exceptions as printed documents.
  3. Even off-the-cuff remarks etc. in a parliamentary body, by members of that body (i.e. Representatives and Senators in the US Congress), are, when included in the record of that assembly, covered by the same copyright terms or exemptions as the overall record. Unless the words had a prior copyright (i.e. a Senator reading a copyrighted work aloud in the Senate), and the record includes them merely as "fair use", the speech of the members in the assembly becomes part of the record and covered by the same copyright. Since Khrushchev was First Secretary (General Secretary) at the time, he was definitely a member of the party and its Congress, and there is no doubt that this particular speech was made in his role as the effective leader of the Soviet Union (if he wasn't, he would most likely have disappeared mid-sente…).

Based on this reasoning, I actually find myself somewhat persuaded that this speech is in fact in the public domain, through a copyright exemption, in the Soviet Union and its successor states; and that its English translation is therefore in the public domain, as a PD-USGov translation of a public domain Russian original, in the US.

Thoughts? What'd I miss, misunderstand, fail to take into account? Does this reasoning hold up? --Xover (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll just point out that this document has a Wikipedia page with the history of the document, which may be useful to determine its official status. It looks to me like you may be right. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Apparently things are a bit more complicated than this. See the discussion at the Russian Scriptorium.--Itsused (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, having trawled through the thread on ruWS and one of the previous deletion discussions linked from there, the summary seems to be thus: Khrushchev made the speech to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the governing congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and he did so in his role as the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (in fact, he held no other relevant offices at the time of the speech). These are not, in fact, entities of the Soviet state, but are all part of the political party. The fact that the Soviet Union was formally a one-party state, that government in practice was controlled by the party, and that the General Secretary of the party was the de facto Leader of the Soviet Union, are all immaterial as far as the copyright laws are concerned. The formal Government of the Soviet Union, whose products the copyright exceptions mentioned above apply to, was the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, led by the Chairman (Premier), and the "Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet". Even the version eventually published in the Soviet Union in 1989 was actually published by the Communist Party, and not the Soviet state.

In other words, the speech does not fall under any of the "official documents of government"-type exceptions. The matter then becomes one of Khrushchev's copyrights, which, through various steps, ends up not expiring until the end of 2041 (pma. 70). enwp can use it under fair use, but neither Commons nor enWS can, as it's not actually public domain. And ruWS has nominated it for deletion as a result of our raising the question. --Xover (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

next thing you will say: he was not head of state, because he did not hold "relevant offices". triumph of "de jure" over "de facto". Slowking4SvG's revenge 08:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of who had the original copyright to Khrushchev's secret speech, it expired fifty years after 1956, and so are the translations. Also, the US in not the first translator of the document. — Ineuw talk 04:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ineuw: As we established above, the copyright to the speech vested in Khrushchev personally. The term of protection is then also relative to the date of the death of the author (pma) and not the date of publication (date of publication comes into play only for anonymous works). And while Russia did previously have a pma. 50 copyright term, this was amended in 2004 to be pma. 70. In other words, the relevant reference is 1971 when Khrushchev died, and not 1956 when the speech was made. And the term of protection therefore lasts until the end of 2041. --Xover (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Xover: If the amendment was of 2004, it does not have U.S. cognizance, so not relevant for this site. Except in case of bilateral agreement, if any. Therefore it would be date of publication + 95 years, i.e., 2051. Hrishikes (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Russia is a signatory to the Berne agreement and a WTO member, and so their copyright terms are valid in the US. And even a pma. 50 term would not expire until the end of 2021. --Xover (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Xover's information is correct. If it is considered to be Khrushchev's personal property, then perhaps we should ask Khrushchev's son what is the status of the document. P.S: Who will compose and send the email? :-) — Ineuw talk 09:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not how the Berne Convention works. Each nation sets its own copyright terms and honors the copyright of other signers within those terms. Those terms have to be at least life+50, but while the copyright length in the US is publication based, the w:Marrakesh Agreement apparently means there's a multinational agreement that the US copyright law, as of the w:Uruguay Round Agreements Act satisfies that requirement. "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States" from Cornell University gives a fairly detailed description of the durations of US copyright law.
In this case, presuming that the copyright wasn't owned by a government (a complexity not covered by Cornell's chart), and it is considered published in 1956 (that would be a pretty broad limited publication), then 2051 is right. If it is considered published in 1989 (the first time it was openly published in the Soviet Union), then it will be under copyright in the US until 2048 (70 years from 1978, as a grandfathered protection for unpublished works).
It's certainly one of the points where the law and the practice don't come particularly close. Sergei Nikitich Khrushchev, who, as the surviving heir, is probably the copyright owner, doesn't seem to act as the owner. The Soviet Union didn't have international copyright relations until 1973, and the laws in the US left most foreign works in the public domain, including this one, so the rules have changed a lot.
Sergei Nikitich Khrushchev is at Brown University, so someone might be able to get a OTRS clearance on the speech.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
"a complexity not covered by Cornell's chart" i.e. you are manufacturing complexities not covered by the gold standard of practice of libraries. do we have any evidence that the Khrushchev heirs have claimed copyright? yes, let’s email everyone to confirm their non-action. what if they use a PD mark, or general statement, which commons won’t accept? it is a Gordian knot of your own making, devoid of any risk assessment. Slowking4SvG's revenge 11:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The gold standard is the law itself, and then the Copyright Office; third parties can at best offer a silver standard. In any case, the complexity not covered is that the URAA does not restore certain government-owned copyrights, so ignoring it just makes it more likely this is under copyright.
Do you see any evidence the heirs of Lord Dunsany have claimed copyright over War Poems? At least in my world, very well known works that have a known heir with a good case for copyright have a decent risk associated with them; perhaps less than the works of Harlan Ellison™, but more than a lot of works I know were copyright-renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
a law is not a standard. the copyright office can be captured. i have been to the copyright office as they "consulted" with the author’s guild as they vented on hathi trust. it did not inspire confidence. we can look to the standard of practice of the best third parties as to what our standard of practice should be. being more sophistical about edge cases, is not a higher standard. we have guidance from legal about URAA, would you care to follow it? "ignoring it just makes it more likely this is under copyright." - no, our assessment of the risk does not increase the risk. "decent risk" - clearly we have different views as to what the risk is. if they have not enforced the copyright at russian wikisource, does it exist? Slowking4SvG's revenge 06:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Why are you grumbling like that? Every site needs some rules, otherwise the site cannot run. Strictly speaking, PD-source country is the required item. If it is PD-source country but not PD-URAA, then, yes, it can be uploaded, WMF will turn a blind eye till someone complains; and usually, there will be no complaint. But every Wikisource has locally made some policy. Usually each WS follows the copyright term of the country to which the language primarily belongs. Indic WSes follow PD-India, ruWS likely follows PD-Russia, we at enWS follow PD-US (including PD-URAA). Obviously, following PD-Russia or PD-India and other such foreign rules will lead to lot of confusion, a site cannot run this way. Moreover, the item under discussion is not yet PD-Russia, that's why it has been nominated for deletion (as noted above) at ruWS. So wherefrom comes the question of its inclusion here? Our copyright policy, as it currently stands, is quite sound, IMO. We require PD-US on its own, or PD-US by URAA, or copyright-release by CC, OTRS etc., or Edict-Gov of any country. Except Edict-Gov, it is totally US-centric. Concentrating on one country's rule won't lead to much confusion. Yes, our servers are US-based, even then, allowing PD of other countries won't legally lead to much problem, as Commons is already allowing it. But the point is, this will lead to much confusion and disarray. We cannot just opt for PD by copyright rules of any country. No WS allows this kind of broad-spectrum thing. So, irrespective of WMF's legal advice about URAA, as you noted, our policy of following the URAA should be continued, if we want to run this site in a cohesive way.Hrishikes (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
because russian wikisource has an interpretation of russian law, and everyone here knows better. do not tell me copyright office is better than cornell. they are not. they are political hacks. cornell are librarians. there is a reverence for legal scripture that sounds like the MPAA. risk assessment is not turning a blind eye, rather it is an acknowledgement that the law is not black and white or right and wrong. Slowking4SvG's revenge 07:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Then what is your point? Copyright Office and Cornell librarians are useless, so let's just disregard them and allow all books here on fair use doctrine and let the copyright go hang? If you have some new policy in mind, please put up a separate and detailed proposal for discussion of the community. That would be a constructive contribution. Hrishikes (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
so what is your point? - that you are still right and everyone else is still wrong? i have dealt with the WMF legal team, they are reasonable, and the amateur lawyers on commons are not. actual legal practice is much more that the sum of all the documents. i offered up a policy; you lot are too attached to your "live free or die". see also Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2016-10#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy_.28EDP.29 and historically Wikisource:News/2006-03-08/Debate over fair use on Wikisource. Slowking4SvG's revenge 21:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Which everyone else? I am not seeing anyone else supporting your points. You are proposing fair use and disregarding of URAA (claiming support of WMF Legal), as I understand. If you can provide supporting evidence and rationality, I have no problem with that, that's why I requested you to put up a separate and detailed proposal. To prove your point, you will need to
    • demonstrate that works reproduced in entirety passes test-3 of the four-balance test given in the Fair Use Rule, in accordance with Finding-3 of the US Supreme Court in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises.
    • demonstrate that WMF Legal has supported disregarding of URAA in a legally valid way. As stated by WMF Legal, they did go for a legal fight against URAA in w:Golan v. Holder, but lost in court. So their stand does not have legal validity. So they have advised for a case-by-case analysis of every work for URAA assessment, citing complexity of the law, and also advised to wait till a take-down notice is received, for deletion of the work.(1, 2) This is suitable for Commons, not Wikisource. In Commons, your labour consists of uploading the work. If it is deleted, that labour is lost. In Wikisource, a work is proofread, validated, transcluded, sometimes selected for Featured Text. All that labour by multiple editors is lost when the work is deleted.
    • So if you take the fair use stand against URAA, you need to demonstrate that the "lost-in-court" stand of WMF for waiting for take-down notice is suitable for Wikisource.
    • In addition to point 1 above, the Fair Use rule also stipulates use of the reproduced work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, validity of which needs to be demonstrated in case of Wikisource.
    • As for EDP, it has a very narrow spectrum within the fair use rubric, and not applicable to whole works. Within its narrow spectrum, however, I consider it supportable in this site, however, site-specific policy needs to be developed, preferably with some input from a lawyer.
    • Without point-by-point logical argument with supporting evidence and rationale, only inserting some random comments about fair use, corruption of copyright office etc., in any copyright-related discussion, as you have been recently doing, is not sufficient for convincing the community. And claiming support of "everyone else" also requires evidence. Hrishikes (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2016-10#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy_.28EDP.29, and feel it's a little limited; my need for fair use would be for NTSB reports, which needs more than images. But it in no way covers this case. I gave you a risk assessment; "very well known works that have a known heir with a good case for copyright have a decent risk associated with them". I have deep problems with risk assessment; most people can't defend even modern work from copyright infringement whereas the Doyle and Christie estates can harass legit users of PD work. Frankly, risk assessment feels wrong; if it's okay to copy stories from the pulps of the 1970s, then we shouldn't worry if they have the name Harlan Ellison™ attached to them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
you raise a good point that the MLK heirs are different from the Khrushchev heirs. do we have any evidence of these heirs claiming copyright? any Russian government officials? any European officials? are we not projecting american legal practice upon foreign legal systems? as we know the law is more than the sum of the texts.
you raise a good point about copyfraud. does not PRP give a license to pre-emptively enforce a fraud? or modify a CC license by writing a stern letter? have not items been deleted with only a stern letter, and not a DMCA? do we agree there are some risks we would undertake, if we had a consensus the item was PD? have not Swedish and German uploaders taken those risks?
"demonstrate that WMF Legal has supported disregarding of URAA in a legally valid way." now you are questioning the legal judgement of WMF? really? where did you go to law school?
"All that labour by multiple editors is lost when the work is deleted." some of us have more labor to be deleted than others.
"demonstrate that works reproduced in entirety passes test-3 of the four-balance test" to who? you? i do not have much confidence in a consensus, given PRP argumentation. there was little interest in a tighter standard. Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
In the US, does the heirs of Khrushchev have a copyright on the Secret Speech? The answer is apparently yes, and you have made no real attempt to argue otherwise. Are there current exceptions to the rule that we don't post anything that's not in the public domain that we don't have a free license to? No. If you want to argue for an exception, this is not the topic for it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
on the contrary, i have given up reasoning, that it is PD russia, which wikisource russia agrees with. even if i agreed that we should "consider the heirs" (which i do not), those heirs apparently agree it is PD, since they do not enforce their "rights". this is not a private letter, but a public speech with historical implication, regardless of the security. no exception here, merely your tl;dr sophistry. you do not address points about evidence, rather you shift ground and shift burden of proof. "risk assessment feels wrong" - no deleting items that very well could be kept, and diminish the texts available, is wrong. it is not a way to collaborate: it is not dictation. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: As you do not believe in consensus and continue repeating the same points without going through the discussion properly, it seems futile to discuss with you. Anyway, you have raised some allegations against me and repeated some wrong assertions.
  • I have not questioned any "legal judgement of WMF". I could not have, simply because I am not aware that WMF is a court and that they have passed any "legal judgement". I have cited the "legal judgement" of the U.S. Supreme Court. If you read carefully, hopefully you will be able to discover it.
  • I have never asked you to demonstrate anything to me. Please refrain from this kind of allegation. I have repeatedly requested you to give a detailed proposal, containing your points, to the community. The matter of demonstrating pertains to that proposal.
  • The item under discussion is not PD-Russia; nobody has claimed so. It is hosted in ruWS under RusGov, i.e., EdictGov-Russia. This has been challenged in ruWS deletion nomination (1).
Hrishikes (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
do not put words in my mouth - i have never said i do not believe in consensus. rather i do not believe in toxic non-leadership. what would you know of consensus? how should i report this incident at wikimania: "out of an abundance of caution Khrushchev's speech was repeatedly deleted, on english, out of concern that his heirs would sue us" - does that summarize your views? Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Your exact wordings were "i do not have much confidence in a consensus ...". Anyway, this item (original version) is not PD-Russia, or EdictGov-Russia or PD-URAA. It is not PD of any kind. Neither is it CC or OTRS. So the author's son appears to not claiming the copyright. So what copyright tag, according to you, should apply to it? {{Copyright-unclaimed}}? Hrishikes (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thanks for the quote - it is a paradox: i have very little confidence in copyright discussion here or the sub-optimal "consensus" they produce. and yet i abide by them. just look at this discussion; it does not inspire much confidence in copyright determinations. widespread use of tautology and parsing of foreign texts, not evidence or context. "winning is the only thing": we have a generation of admins who would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven. continue with this behavior and it will be wikinews everywhere. how about {{PD-Arse}} Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You claimed that it is "PD russia". How is that not either parsing of foreign texts or pulling something out of your ass? US law is basically "works first published between 1923 and 2002 inclusive are in copyright for 95 years from first publication." Once you cross that line, you're dealing with a work presumed copyright and need to actively justify that it's not.
Dealing only with works that were published at least 95 years ago would leave a huge body of valuable works open for us. There are other sites that don't care about copyright nearly as much as us, or at all. PD-Arse is a tag appropriate for the Pirate Bay, not us. That is one of things that makes Wikimedia wikis different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
no - wikimedia is renowned for the lack of adult supervision. library professionals are appalled by the "cultural buzzsaw", and they are building their own transcription websites, where the volunteers are run-off wikimedians. the fact that historical documents are stuck on internet archive, and academic blogs and google docs is no loss to you. it’s all good, because you are large and in charge. i can link off wiki as easy as wikisource. i wonder what the wikimania audience will say as i raise this issue? Slowking4SvG's revenge 20:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Nothing screams adulthood like ignoring standard English orthography and explaining that copyright problems go away with {{PD-Arse}}. I think you'll actually find that libraries prefer proper English and careful copyright checks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
nothing whispers adulthood like having to have the last word. guy kawasaki is a smart man, and it is funny his parting shot is "You feel surrounded by incompetent idiots – and you can’t help letting them know the truth every now and then". i wonder what prompted that? i’m just reporting what actual librarians say about this place, and it is not "my, aren’t they so diligent about their copyright checks"; but then why don’t you ask a librarian, if you can find one? i guess i will say at wikimania: "copyright hysteria = lost opportunities" how’s that sound to you? Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: It hasn’t been deleted yet from ruWS[edit]

--Itsused (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Per project statistics[edit]

Following my previous post about progress statistics by project, I decided to do some analysis myself. Based on the latest database dump, I looked at the Page: namespace and only counted the edits which change the status of a page.

It is possible to find many interesting tidbits of information from the different projects. For example:

However, it is mostly interesting to check the status of the backlog. For example:

What I wanted mostly was to know on which projects people are currently working. Dumps are not the most appropriate way to go about it as we miss a few days, but it is possible to know what happened in June using the latest dump from July 1st. In June, 419 projects have been edited (i.e. at least one page changed status), the most active being:

Editions by project in June 2017 (as of July 1st)
Index name Index status Pages validated Pages proofread Pages empty Pages remaining Number of pages modified Number of revisions Number of Authors
Index:Travels in Mexico and life among the Mexicans.djvu To be proofread 228 396 62 0 667 910 4
Index:Tarzan of the Apes.djvu Validated 407 0 17 6 410 769 3
Index:Thoreau - His Home, Friends and Books (1902).djvu Validated 346 0 38 0 384 745 15
Index:The Shaving of Shagpat.djvu Validated 306 0 20 0 308 611 2
Index:Ballantyne--The Battery and the Boiler.djvu Proofread 116 316 16 4 432 475 2
Index:The Novels and Tales of Henry James, Volume 1 (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907).djvu Validated 550 0 18 0 455 455 2
Index:The Novels and Tales of Henry James, Volume 2 (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907).djvu Validated 564 0 14 0 434 434 2
Index:The Bostonians (London & New York, Macmillan & Co., 1886).djvu Validated 451 0 13 0 430 430 1
Index:Cuthbert Bede--Little Mr Bouncer and Tales of College Life.djvu Proofread 48 256 14 0 311 425 3
Index:Royal Naval Biography Marshall sp4.djvu To be proofread 14 420 18 29 383 385 2
Index:Maud Howe - Atlanta in the South.djvu To be proofread 7 339 10 6 348 352 2
Index:Morley--Travels in Philadelphia.djvu Proofread 203 69 16 0 255 347 2
Index:Ballinger Price--Us and the Bottle Man.djvu Validated 162 0 14 0 176 338 4

Is there any interest for this kind of statistics and analysis? I understand Wikisource is currently driven by very dedicated users who start and often finish a work all by themselves. However, for a more casual editor, who wants to simply proofread a few pages and see a complete book including his work without having to wait for years, this could be a good extension to the proofread of the month (which is clearly visible in the table above!).

Technical description: I parsed a dump of the database to extract each project (based on the index pages), each page (based on the page namespace) and each revision changing the status of the page (not proofread, proofread, validated, etc.). The link between the page and the project is done by looking at the page name. This approach means I don't deal well with all the projects where the page is not a subpage of the index (there are 8769 of these). I also extracted the number of pages of the file, in order to take into account pages not yet created (I did not find how to get this data from the database directly, I had to scrap the HTML of the commons page).

Koxinga (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

From the perspective of "completeness" of works, we are interested in works that are nearly proofread, or nearly validated, that have not been edited for a period of time, so we can put resources to them. They are cheap wins with true value. If you are looking to see missing/non-created pages of a work, then you probably want to get a count of pages from the File: and compare that with the number of subpages of Index:. That would be a neat comparison as that would be another indicator of near completeness.

The other factoids, are interesting trivia, though I am not sure that they are particularly enlightening for the site, or our work — though I could just be considered a boring unexcitable, unromantic, task-focused fart. Noting that the stats about projects doesn't consider our multiple volume projects (EB1911, DNB, DMM, +++). Thinking of what would be useful: numbers of Index: works with counts for images missing, score missing, etc. so we could focus efforts, or promote efforts to assist completion. Numbers of edits on works is not relevant, though maybe date from creation to validation may have some social interest, though even that has dodginess of the work has advertising. We already track our validated and proofread works, and try to keep on top of transclusion status. [As said I may have the wrong focus for what is interesting to the trivia buffs.) — billinghurst sDrewth 13:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Noting that pages remaining (not proofread) can be due to works having their advertising pages remaining, eg. Ballantyne's work above, so for a work like that, it has been marked as proofread (important), and we are tracking that its advertising is not done by a category. So pages unread in a proofread or validated work; whereas pages unread where small in a work not proofread is interesting. We are a complex beast. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Finding a work that had no pages remaining (ie. nothing to be proofread) for a work marked as "not proofread" is very useful as it enables us to review and reclassify as required by the review. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. A few answers:
  • The trivia was to show the different possibilities, but I mostly aim to do something useful for project tracking and motivation of the different users. I know that at least for me, it would be motivating to see which works are being actively worked on, so that I can see progress when I come back to it, I know I can ask questions and exchange about the project, etc.
  • Yes, I use the actual number of pages of the uploaded file, so I can find the pages not yet created, I mostly consider them the same as the "not proofread" pages but it can be separated if needed.
  • I don't trust the "proofread", "validated", etc. flag in the index. It is manually set, so there can be mistakes in one direction or another. That's why I think it is useful to compare it to the actual situation of each page.
  • It is possible to remove the advertisement pages from my analysis, based on the <pagelist> tags, but we need to define a consistent marking for them. I saw some adv, adv., advt, advert (with a bonus "index to advert"), advertisement. Do we allow all of these or to we try to normalize?
  • I can take into account multi-volume projects and group them together, by looking at the Volumes part of the index page, especially the Category:Scanned volume navigation templates, I will look into it.
Koxinga (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
There is something wrong with the information gathered. Index:Popular Science Monthly Volume 12.djvu was completely validated a long time ago, and and the proofreading of Index:Travels in Mexico and life among the Mexicans.djvu was also completed, perhaps at the beginning of this month. — Ineuw talk 04:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
My analysis is based on a database dump, using the most recent one from July 1st. At the time of this dump, Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 12.djvu/430 was not yet validated, it has been done after I posted this message. For Index:Travels in Mexico and life among the Mexicans.djvu, I did say that there was 0 page remaining, however, at the time of the dump, even if all the pages had been proofread, the index status was still "to be proofread". It has also been changed just after I posted this message. If there is an interest, it would be possible to use the recent changes to update the data more frequently, but judging from the lack of response here, it does not seem worth it.Koxinga (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. It's interesting. — Ineuw talk 09:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Using Template:SIC with incorrect punctuation?[edit]

I have an unclosed bracket ("parenthesis" for any Americans reading this) in the first paragraph of the commentary on Chapter 14 at Page:An_Exposition_of_the_Old_and_New_Testament_(1828)_vol_1.djvu/125. I can't work out how to show that the first comma after the opening bracket should be a closing bracket, as shown in other editions from the 18th and 19th centuries. --PeterR2 (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

My own preference is not to mark anything in these situations. I just replicate what the printed text says. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess people do these things for different reasons. I am working on this because I want to contribute to a reliable online text of a good edition of Matthew Henry's Bible commentary. The only existing one, which is used in various mobile phone apps, is from an unknown edition/editions and therefore not possible to proofread.

--PeterR2 (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If I think it's important to show what seems to be the correct punctuation, sometimes I include the word attached to the punctuation to make it a little more visible. So if I understand correctly the place you're talking about, you could try this: {{SIC|history,|history)}}, which results in: history, — is that more or less what you had in mind? Mudbringer (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and have occasionally done the same as Mudbringer, when I was concerned about the authenticity of the text. For some texts, it's not worth noting, and in some cases it's actually a printing / scanning issue. I've come across scans where there ought to have been a period at the end of a line, but none is visible in the scan, or where the scan shows a period, but it ought to be a comma. In some of these cases, I have had access to a printed copy, and could see the impression of the period, or the slight bit of ink starting a comma. Sometimes the ink isn't properly distributed by the printer, or the punctuation type was defective at the original press. In those situations, it's not worth marking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Or just stick the correct punctuation inside a <includeonly> so it displays per the scan in the Page: ns, and it displays corrected in main ns. Stick an html comment in place if you really need to have a comment. I would not normally use {{SIC}} to correct punctuation, it pretty much defeats the purpose if it is a necessary piece of punctuation. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
In the case PeterR2 brought up, it would be necessary to have history<includeonly>)</includeonly><noinclude>,</noinclude> since there's also a comma that needs to be suppressed in the transcluded text. If this is an approach often taken on Wikisource, wouldn't it be better to have a template to do this, to make it clear that this is a permissible option, and make it possible to find places where this has been done? Mudbringer (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Style changes?[edit]

When I used to edit index pages like this:- Index:The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 18.djvu

The field boxes USED to be in monospace. They aren't currently meaning that options overrun.

Is this a style change on Mediawiki, or a local configuration issue with an updated Firefox? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

sure looks like a style change in media wiki. index page editing interface change. is there any documentation / notice for this? Slowking4SvG's revenge 11:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
[Wikisource-l] Tech details
GSoC Proposal[2017]: Improvements to ProofreadPage Extension and Wikisource
Weekly reports: Improvements to ProofreadPage Extension and Wikisource, Zdzislaw (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
In summary, there was no notice where the ordinary user of enWS would see it. It's a pity the GSoC Proposal was called "improvements" when so far it's resulted in a new user right that had to be reversed almost immediately after implementation and this uglification of something that worked just fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
hmmm, I do not think so... page editor interface will be switching over to OOUI soon - is now ready for deployment to Wikimedia wikis, see: The_Atlantic_Monthly/Volume_2/Number_2/The_Autocrat_of_the_Breakfast-Table. So, adaptation of "the rest" of the proofread extension ui is also required. It would rather be nice to say "thank" that someone wants to do... and get some skins for improvement... Zdzislaw (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
As I am no UI guy, I miss why a switch to OOUI implies also a style change, but never mind, was just curious. Just a comment: the style of the summary section in the pages above is different for the Index and the Main ns.— Mpaa (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
After switching to OOUI will be the same - Index:The_Atlantic_Monthly,_Volume_18.djvu, Zdzislaw (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
You mean they will both be glitchy? I'm not getting arrow images by some of the drop-down items (like "Progress") and it looks as though the limitations on values for Year of Publication have gone away. It would have been nice if the change had been explained clearly to non-tech-minded users beforehand, or better still, if it had been tested on non-Wikipedia projects like Wikisource. I hate to think what this will do to Wiktionary editing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Another question about copyright.[edit]

Looked up a short microfilmed article on the New York Times, downloaded the page as .pdf, and typed the contents into a text file (pdf copy and paste was blocked). At the bottom of the microfilmed article was the following claim: Published: February 12, 1877 Copyright © The New York Times. Is it or is it not in the public domain? — Ineuw talk 02:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It's public domain. The assertion of copyright there is at best imprecise (at worst fraudulent). If it was published before 1923 (anywhere in the world) it is safe to assume it's public domain in the US. And since this was first published in the US we need not take into account any differing copyright terms in other countries (i.e. the annoying rules for magazines published in the UK). --Xover (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyone can make a claim about anything... Whereas the reality is that I got the most votes at the recent US election... But it doesn't necessarily make it factually correct. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
do not know why experienced editors keep asking. there is a reflexive naivete towards the false boilerplate that institutions persist in. how many items have been deleted on false claims? it shows that the copyright determination is not balanced, but tilted sharply toward delete. Slowking4SvG's revenge 21:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Experienced editor, maybe. Knowledgeable, I doubt that. I will bring up the matter with The New York Times, since I love to bother them occasionally. — Ineuw talk 16:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
bother them all you want, their legal department does not care. you could also bother Getty, MacArthur Foundation, National Portrait Gallery, London, Louvre, Smithsonian Institution, etc, etc. [3] Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-29[edit]

22:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Future changes previously mentioned: TemplateStyles[edit]

Mentioned first above at #Tech News: 2017-24

Hi all,

we'll enable TemplateStyles (mw:Extension:TemplateStyles and mw:Help:TemplateStyles) tomorrow on, and some test wikis. (Today for those of you in UTC or later time zones.)

TemplateStyles allows editors to add complex CSS to templates with the help of a <templatestyles> tag. This makes template maintenance easier, lowers the barrier of access (previously you had to be an admin to be able to add new CSS) and empowers editors to create more user-, mobile- and print-friendly templates.

For plans for rolling it out to content wikis see phab:T168808.

Gergo Tisza, wikitech-l mailing list

Schedules are WRONG, the columns don't match the info, please check my comment in February![edit]

Hello, the schedules haven't been corrected, I advised you about this back in February!

Regards, Neil, South Africa

@ShakespeareFan00: is this you? The only discussion I can find on the Scriptorium regarding broken schedules is Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-03#Enough! from March 1, and I thought that was figured out. -- Otherwise, Neil, we'll need more info. What are you referring to? Did you possibly mean to post that comment elsewhere? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The only other message from Neil that I can find was on my talkpage a month ago: User talk:Beeswaxcandle#Registration Acts of 1836, England. I had, and have, no idea why I was messaged directly about it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, we do have 1836 (33) Registration of Births &c. A bill for registering Births Deaths and Marriages in England and another for marriages. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
and 1836 (34) Marriages. A bill for Marriages in England though the schedules look okay to me at first blush. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-30[edit]

15:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-07[edit]

16:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Marking multiple pages as proofread[edit]

Is there a way to mark pages proofread (or validated), without opening each page one by one, edit, mark, save, etc.? I'm reading a book offline. The text is currently marked as "not proofread", but it is much better than than raw OCR, so the majority of the pages need no change. I'd like to, e.g., read a couple of chapters, make the corrections needed in the few affected pages and then mark all pages from n to m as "proofread". Any way to do this? Jellby (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt there is a way, because it would be too easily abused :) ... but the process can be sped up. For Windows, you can open a whole series of pages from the Index page by control-clicking with the mouse, then each page you can begin editing with alt-shift-e, immediately jump to the summary box at the bottom with alt-shift-b, click the proofread circle, then either click the publish button or publish the page with alt-shift-s. That shouldn't take more than 20 seconds per page. Perhaps someone with Autohotkey has figured out how to mark a page as edited with a single keystroke. I'd personally recommend clicking into the text box and giving one last look with a spellcheck to pick up any easy errors you might have missed. It's amazing how easy it is to overlook stuff. Mudbringer (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
It's a fairly straight-forward piece of JS too. Basically, from editing, you just need to do something like $('span.quality3 input').click(); to mark the page proofread and then do a click() on the "Save" button. This is how you could add to the TemplateScript sidebar and give it a "Alt-Shift-Q" (Alt-Shift prefix depends on browser+platform) shortcut:
// Quick proofread tool for preloaded proofread text

"use strict";

var quick_proofread = {
    init: function() {
        var self = this;
        // only care for editing in the Page: namespace
        if ( !(mw.config.get( 'wgAction' ) === 'edit' || mw.config.get( 'wgAction' ) === 'submit' )
            || mw.config.get( 'wgNamespaceNumber' ) !== 104 ) {

        console.log("Installing Quick PR tool");

        $.ajax('//', { dataType:'script', cache:true }).then(function() {

            // Add tool to sidebar
                    {   name: 'Quick proofread', 
                        position: 'cursor',
                        accessKey: 'q',
                        script: function(editor) {
                { category:'page', forNamespaces:'page' }
        }); // end ajax
    mark_proofread: function() {
        $('span.quality3 input').click();
    save_page: function() {
        var summary_text = "Quick proofread from offline proofreading";

All you have to do then is wait for the tool to appear in the toolbar, make sure the text is what you expect and press Alt-Shift-Q to mark proofread and save the page with a boilerplate summary.
In theory you can do it all with an API call too, but you'll probably want to use a bot framework like PyWikiBot, as you'll have to deal with edit tokens and stuff manually otherwise. If you do that for a more automated hands-free method, you may need a bot flag, but the advantage is you can load the text from your computer directly, and it's fire-and-forgot once written. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Accessible editing buttons[edit]

--Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Article needs refactoring[edit]

If someone has the time, the template needs to be refactored as its mix of spans and divs seems skewiff. It is also very specific with a general name, and I think that needs some tidy up, or other explanation would be worthwhile. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

With a whole two (2: count them) main-space consumers who the hell cares. Substitute and delete it? 05:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree, this isn't a useful template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Validating question[edit]

I'm running across something I've never seen before, and don't understand. So far, in two books. Please see Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/303 which has coding for sections, and Page:The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy.djvu/57. This has coding for part 1 and part 2. I don't see these divisions on the scanned images, so I don't know what the editors are doing? Can anyone clarify for me, please? Maile66 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the transcluded page for the second case The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy/Chapter 02#33, you can see that an image on another page has been inserted between paragraphs, rather than breaking up the paragraph that continues from the end of the page to past the image. I've done that myself, as on this page: Wonder Tales from Tibet/The Clever Prince and the Stupid Brother#6. I don't know how accepted the technique is, but it makes sense to me. I don't see anything unusual about the first example you show. Mudbringer (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This syntax is known as "labelled section transclusion" and it's used when you want to transclude part of a page instead of the whole thing. This feature is documented at Help:Transclusion#How to transclude a portion of a page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This is good information to have. From now on, I can accept this as correct. Maile66 (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
yeah, placement of images can be tricky, and i would argue for some flexibility in shifting from a strict printed location to where is flows better in the completed work. for example, in A Woman of the Century, there were errata images, which i inserted in the corresponding place. [20] Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
For some works I have simply used <noinclude> to display the image in the Page: ns; and <includeonly> in the main ns. Did it that way as the image placement in the work put the image right out of context, which was ridiculous in how we had the book typset. You just need a reasonable reason and to annotate with an html comment in circumstances where an explanation is useful for proofreaders. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-31[edit]

21:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A question about the random work search[edit]

Whenever I use "Random work", it always searches the main namespace. Is there a way to limit random searches to the Page namespace? Perhaps someone already has a script to accomplish this? . . . OR, perhaps t is available but I missed a setting somewhere? — Ineuw talk 22:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Special:Random/PageBeleg Tâl (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, but this also reverts to works in the main namespace. I suspect the two are the same.:-( — Ineuw talk 02:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
There's a link on WS:PotM that gives a random proofread page for validating. See if you can version that to do what you want. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Beleg Tâl's link works for me as expected (10 from 0). This was fixed ages ago, see mw:Help:Random page, mw:Manual:Random page and mw:Extension:Random pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for the help, especially to the editor/programmer who added 'Random transcription' to the sidebar. That is exactly what was wanted. — Ineuw talk 18:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


I would like to start discussion or voting whether to update Wikinews logo so it uses PNG rendered from File:Wikisource-logo-fr.svg. There is a task on Phabricator, so local community should say whether they agree or disagree with this. Thanks. --Obsuser (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC) [e]

@Obsuser: I assume you mean 'Wikisource' and not 'Wikinews'? :) What's the rationale for proposing the change? What are the actual changes? (For ease of reference here, the proposed change is from this to this.) Personally, I prefer the existing one (a bit darker, and with slightly bolder text). Sam Wilson 23:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Reason is to have all SVGs used for generated PNGs. OK, I will correct it so that it is has bolder text (I don't see that it is darker; File:Wikisource-logo.svg is supposed to be used). There are no actual content changes, that's why affirmation is just formal. Are there any other objections? --Obsuser (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • not supported Seems pretty pointless to me (even after reading the Phabricator task). The current one is just fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
As I explained on en:Wikinews:Water cooler/technical#Update logo, it is not pointless. Currently, it is not possible to have logo with icon placed exactly same on all Wikisource language editions; specifically, I want to update also sr.wikisource logo and to have same icon on same position with text changed only (other Wikisource projects will probably have to do this some time in the future). Other reason for update is to have clear SVG used to create PNG, what will also enable translation into other languages (PNG is not properly or anyway translatable). --Obsuser (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. My own philosophy is to support initiatives unless there's a good reason not to. However I must add that this also seems pointless to me, and I would like some more information on this proposal. First: why would we want to replace the PNG logo with a SVG logo? Would there be any observable difference to the site at all if the PNG logo were replaced with an identical PNG thumbnail of a SVG logo? Second: why would we use a thumbnail generated from File:Wikisource-logo-fr.svg with its slightly different colour scheme, when we could create a new File:Wikisource-logo-en.svg that is visually identical to the current one? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I explained above that it is very useful to have SVG used for creating PNG and enable translation of text only. PNG logo will not be replaced with SVG; as you said in the next sentence, PNG [static] image will be created from SVG, and even if there is no observable difference to this language wiki it will be useful for other Wikisources. I don't see "different colour scheme" in File:Wikisource-logo-fr.svg (for icon, File:Wikisource-logo.svg should and is used everywhere). Only difference to the current logo is the font which is a bit thicker, and I will shortly try to recreate it so that it is same as current one. --Obsuser (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The colours look the same in Chrome for some reason, but they are different in Firefox. See also Samwilson's post below. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I definitely support the idea of generating the PNG version of the Wikisource logo from an SVG file, but I don't really see that the file in question above (which isn't even named correctly) is ready yet to be the replacement. The font is different, and so are the colours (the existing background blue is #375493, but the proposed one is #225991). I know these are small changes, but I really don't think we want to have different versions of the logo (e.g. there are lots of other places that use the logo that we can't control, e.g. exported epubs).

What's the history of the current logo, and why don't we have the original vector source for that?

Sam Wilson 10:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Color is same; I downloaded file from Chrome and Firefox and got #375493 in both cases for both versions (Adobe Illustrator eyedropper).
I will try to fix font and update the proposed file to match current version in the next few days.
I don't know the history of the current logo nor where is original vector source... It would be best if someone could find original SVG or tell who created it, then there would be no need for updating here because translation would be possible. --Obsuser (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The original file appears to be File:Wikisource-newberg-de.png; both File:Wikisource-logo.svg and File:Wikisource-logo-fr.svg are direct derivatives from it by the original creator, User:Zanimum. @Zanimum: your input here would be valuable. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
So, basically I was at college one day, saw about the contest, and digitally scribbled the logo together in maybe an hour, if that? I didn't honestly think it would win, and so by the time they were asking for the source file, it was gone. What's used as the logo is a very faithful tracing of my logo concept. By whom, I'm guessing @Rei-artur:, because I made some sort of incredible trivial to the point of invisible change to their file, according to the edit logs. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, let me check my external storage, there's a slim chance that I have it still. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
(I presume it's not relevant to the conversation, but for posterity's sake, I literally drew the logo on top of File:Iceberg.jpg, also online as File:Old Wikisource logo used until 2006.jpg. I wouldn't say traced, but the proportions are nearly the same.) -- Zanimum (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Cutters Practical Guide[edit]

Can someone that's good with DJVU PLEASE consider grabbing the Hi-res JPG's and making a suitable Djvu?

The Part 1 I am working from on Wikisource isn't that clear in places compared to the scans on the the linked site. Index:The Cutter's Practical Guide 1898 Edition Part 1.djvu

Also Index:The Cutter's Practical Guide Part 13.djvu exists on Wikisource, but again comparison of scan quality would be appreciated.

Plus there are a number of other parts!! (Want an entire tailors manual very nearly? ;) ) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

might not need djvu conversion. you could download; stitch together with ; upload to internet archive; and upload to commons using IAuploader.
in the meantime, volume 13 is done, you could snip the images for that one, and upload to commons and finish that one.
i’m kinda buried until after wikimania. sorry Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Concerns about ability (lack of progress on certain issues) etc.[edit]

Owing to certain technical issues in formatting something, I am considering an extended absence, on the ground that if I continue at this point, I am going to get slowly more and more frustrated with the apparent inability of mediawiki to behave in what might be considered a consistent and intuitive way when it comes to certain formatting considerations, and transclusions.

Perhaps I will reconsider if there's a step change in the response to a number of issues (which have been placed on a low priority by certain developers and contributors), and appropriate hard lobbying for a re-write of proofread page, so that there is no longer a need for the various "hacks" and "clever" work-arounds that have been developed over the last decade, which in an increasing number of areas fail to address the issue that parts of core mediawiki were never apparently designed for the technical challanges of massive-multiple block constructions that use things like table, lists and complex formatting which need to span over a number of these blocks.

The embedding of header/footer/page quality data within a page text is also not ideal, and to my mind portions of (but not limited to the) parser, editing tools, Proofread page and Listed section Transclusion need to be fundamentally re-written, so that I and other contributors aren't every few months trying to figure out what obscure quirk or work-around needs to be used on a very specfic instance this time.

Congratulations, you have potentially lost a long-standing contributor, owing to a noticeable lack of progress on fixing a bad ceiling with a well-aimed sledgehammer, rather than just merely tinkering with the collapsing plaster. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Additionaly, The following gadget " Generate paragraph (pilcrow) markers, ¶ , in the left margin of the Page: namespace to indicate HTML paragraph tag starts. ( IE7 and lower not supported )" no longer works when editing for me under certain circumstances, which would have been rather useful in trying to diagnose where the parser THOUGHT (and where it actually was) it was putting white-space in some works.

I don't for example see any of the relevant marking when viewing this page: which suggests that the Gadget isn't aware or can't cope with multiple columns. I am also suspecting a conflict with another script, but testing every single pair of gadget and script interactions is more effort then I feel confident in undertaking right now.

If things don't improve, I will consider reverting the entire layout to a single column one, on the basis that the mutli-column support is STILL a bit experimental, and a layout not using it should have minimal issues with respect to the current apparently "broken" combination of Parser,Proofread page, LST and other scripts etc.

I've also noted that it's not possible to easily find out which pages I validated specifically, without reading (or re-reading the history of every single page I've edited nearly.). This is highly inefficient waste of time, although in the process of re-reading some earlier efforts, I've HAVE found and hopefully eliminated a number of OCR and typing errors that had been regrettably missed on a less than perfect first pass. I can get a list of pages I have at one time edited that NOW have validated status, but it doesn't seem to be possible to easily generate a list of those I specifically marked as being validated (in some instance prematurely as others have commented). I have recently raised a Phabricator ticket about this (albiet on a Low priority). At the last query I had contributions to about 30,000 or more pages which are now nominally validated. It's simply not feasible to re-read that many pages, and certainly not to a "perfection" standard as is now demanded, in any available time-scale.

When I started editing on Wikisource, it was a "nice" project. Over time I get the impression there is now a move towards a more "professional" and possibly "commericaly-focused" attitude, This isn't of itself a bad thing, but it means that the tolerance level has decreased to such an extent that contributors like myself don't feel as welcome.

So the standard question, Where from here? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't add my first response, it was blunt. So some answers
  1. We have always professed that we want better proofreading, this was the prime reason for moving to scans with Page: ns.
    • We would like it right at the occasion that it is proofread
    • We want it right by validation
    • If a person thinks that an initial pass is required and/or they are not paying full attention then don't advance the proofreading marker. It is that simple. Each of us needs to take our ego out of proofreading, and just look to do a better job.
  2. Don't use multi-columns, that has been our instruction for a long time. So please stop it.
    • We are bringing old books to the web, and the web means wide screens, and it means mobile devices. Getting hung up on a 19thC representation of a piece of paper is ridiculous. Stop it.
  3. We get limited developer time. We all had an opportunity to put forward our ideas, and we voted on our (WS) priorities.
    • Mediawiki is less than perfect, sure, but it is our tool at WMF. It is nowhere as problematic as you make it out, and IMO half of your issues are that you make it harder than it needs to be.
    • Complex templates are problematic for standard proofreaders
    • Where you choose a complex methodology, you cannot expect others to fix it when you run into problems; and getting cranky about it ... well ... how to win friends and influence people.
  4. Do as much as you enjoy, and when it becomes troublesome take a break, or do something different, it is what the rest of us do. It is meant to be fun for ourselves, and for others. Don't be a diva.
billinghurst sDrewth 23:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll also add, as I briefly mentioned on the Help page, that if you are having trouble with the behaviour of the parser or gadgets like Easy LST your best bet is to raise the issue at Phabricator. I don't think there's anyone here on WS with the ability to fix problems like this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
As a mild aside if some administrator type could edit MediaWiki:Gadget-pilcrowMarkers.css and either modify existing line:
body.ns-104 div.pagetext > p:before {
to instead read:
body.ns-104 div.pagetext p:before {
body.ns-104 div.pagetext p:before {
I think this might address the basic problem. 07:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
i would say taking breaks should be a part of your standard practice. you should also consider reducing your expectations. this is an open code project, with all that entails. it is a miracle it works at all. UX and code improvement requires working in a collaborative manner. the squeaky wheel may not always get the grease. (people suggest i use scripts to customize, but i do not, because KISS; and they are broken by others; and serious flaws in workflows should be part of code review, rather than worked around.) Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00:In the meantime, I replaced the line:
body.ns-104 div.pagetext > p:before {
to read:
body.ns-104 div.pagetext p:before {
Please test it if it works. — Ineuw talk 18:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Pilcrow's now display on single columnular layout Page:The Cutter's Practical Guide 1898 Edition Part 1.djvu/28 which I am cleaning up the relevant work to.

They don't look right if div col is used see-, for example, they display, but the pilcrows are overlaid on the left hand side. This however was expected, and resolving the compatibility issue fully is perhaps irrelevant as I am converting the work to a single column per advice I was given above. Thanks for the fix :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Index:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu[edit]

Just checking my edit history, and it says I made an edit on the Index page. Here: Must have been an error, because I don't remember editing the Index page on this one. But it also won't let me revert myself. It says that's already done. But can someone please check to see if I messed up that Index page, please?

Also, since Wikimedia started rolling out its changes a month or so ago, major issues for what I see across Wikimedia sites. Browser incompatibility (and not just my Firefox) On Wikisource, it's usually just having to reload, Show Preview, reload again, Show Preview again, before all the tools load on the left. Save that edit, and do the whole routine over again on the next page. Not your fault, but it takes 3-6 times as long to validate one page. And, yeah, the browser incompatibility been discussed with me over at Wikipedia's Village Pump. Maile66 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed this happening since the the Index edit interface changed in mid-July. The first one in my history is July 11. It seems that after some update in mediawiki, the first person who began to edit a page associated with an index page thereby caused an edit in index page itself. So you can see the edit I actually made and the one that occurred just before in the index page. Mudbringer (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Some of the "edits" are the result of the system making null edits to correct issues caused by earlier versions of the interface. This is why removing a blank line in the Index page shows up as removing 264K. There's a lot of hidden garbage in some of our pages that gets cleaned up as we go. An edit on a page associated with an Index causes the Index to be cleaned up of some of these known problems automagically. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both. I sometimes make null edits on index pages, so I probably did that on this one. Maile66 (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Maile66: I am not seeing your issues. It is quite possible that your common.js file is at issue, or and the gadgets that you are using. Try nulling out the loaded element in the file to see if it makes a difference. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks for replying, but I was just venting my frustrations about browser incompatibility. Believe me, it's Firefox and the technical changes Wikimedia is rolling out. On almost the exact date Wikimedia began the roll outs, Firefox updated to a new version. I've already been through this on the Village Pump over at English Wikipedia. Wikimedia has someone on their team with Firefox, and they got the same flubs. When it first happened, I removed all scripts, and it made no difference. It's all the sites now. Hopefully, Firefox and Wikimedia will eventually have a harmonic convergence, and this will go away. Maile66 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-32[edit]

21:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia translations[edit]

We have some translations of non-English texts that were created on Wikipedia by their own editors. It seems to me that current practice is to put these translations in Translation namespace, which labels them as translated by Wikisource (as opposed to translated by Wikipedia). I just want to confirm: is this the best practice? and if so, should the translation header be updated to allow attribution of WP—or are we sufficiently integrated with WP that the distinction doesn't matter? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibly relevant: w:Wikipedia:Copying within WikipediaBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I would think that we could capture on the notes page using {{textinfo}} and the use of the edition parameter — billinghurst sDrewth 13:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Share your thoughts on the draft strategy direction[edit]

At the beginning of this year, we initiated a broad discussion to form a strategic direction that will unite and inspire people across the entire movement. This direction will be the foundation on which we will build clear plans and set priorities. More than 80 communities and groups have discussed and gave feedback on-wiki, in person, virtually, and through private surveys[strategy 1][strategy 2]. We researched readers and consulted more than 150 experts[strategy 3]. We looked at future trends that will affect our mission, and gathered feedback from partners and donors.

In July, a group of community volunteers and representatives from the strategy team took on a task of synthesizing this feedback into an early version of the strategic direction that the broader movement can review and discuss.

The first draft is ready. Please read, share, and discuss on the talk page. Based on your feedback, the drafting group will refine and finalize this direction through August.

  1. Cycle 1 synthesis report
  2. Cycle 2 synthesis report
  3. New Voices synthesis report

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

RL sidenote[edit]

In the past, {{RL sidenote}} was supposed to display a sidenote in the right margin in the Page namespace, but a left sidenote in the Main namespace. However, as you can see comparing Page and Main, the template is displaying a right-margin sidenote in both namespaces now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That's in Layout 2. Sidenotes have different behaviours in the various Layouts. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I just noticed that {{left sidenote}} also displays to the right, at least in Layout 2. Is this documented anywhere as expected behavior? According to Help:Layout sidenotes should appear on the left and right, and IIRC they used to do so. Has the layout been changed to force sidenotes to the right? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment note that the "sidenote" templates have hard-coded formatting classes that align with code in MediaWiki:Gadget-PageNumbers-core.js. I would hazard a guess that we are at the consequence of template and GOIII's css coding. This should all be part of our review when we get template style sheets. We will seriously need help of someone competent. @Samwilson: maybe you can find someone at Wikimania with css skills who may have an interest in helping us sort out our lost ways. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I'll ask around! The problem doesn't seem to be in {{RL sidenote}}, but rather that a left sidenote is displaying at the right in mainspace. Which as you say is because of that javascript. It seems to be styling them both the same, e.g. for layout 2:
'.sidenote-right':"position:absolute; left:37em; width:16em; text-indent:0em; text-align:left;",
'.sidenote-left': "position:absolute; left:37em; width:16em; text-indent:0em; text-align:left;",

Is that desired? Should the latter of those be left:-37em? This is all rather complicated! :-)

Sam Wilson 11:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

A template that links to the Index page without transcluding anything[edit]

I seem to recall seeing a template somewhere, which one would use in Mainspace to trigger the "Source" tab and other ProofreadPage items even if no transclusion were actually taking place. (This would be used for works with no front matter, such as The Holly & the Ivy, and Twelve Articles.) Does anyone know if this template is real, and what it is? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: I did some trial edits through there yesterday(ish). — billinghurst sDrewth 06:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-33[edit]

23:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Timeless skin in beta very soon[edit]

A while back we agreed to trial the skin "Timeless" to identify its ability to work at Wikisource, especially in the ProofreadPage environment. The talk is that this will be with us soon. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Pl. do suggest Commerce, economic, and law pages for proof reading for academic project[edit]


MES, Garware College Pune is planning to take up a wikisource proof reading as an academic project mainly at mr.wikisource. Depending on students liking proofreading responsibility may be given on en wikisource transcription project.

Pl. do suggest Commerce education , economic, and Commercial Indian law pages for proof reading for academic project for first year B.Com. students.

Pl do note students may not have detail previous exposure to wikipedia or wikisource. Edits in first training workshop scheduled 18 August 2017 may happen from ip address-even may be dynamic one. User accounts will get opened over next week or so.

known ip addresses will be informed at

Thanks for community co-operation.

Mahitgar (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Formatting images for mobile view[edit]

I am a recent convert from flip-phone to smart, and have been exploring Wikisource through mobile eyes. But I have for some months been aware that using the formatting [[File:Example.jpg|center]] is no guarantee that images will be centered in mobile view (<center> works, however); line spacing (and who knows what else) is also affected in some cases. Most images appear screen left. See Alice Meynell's Preludes for a visual, noting image placement, line spacing issues (title page), and even TOC placement.

Is mobile-friendly formatting something the community feels important to address? Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think being mobile-friendly is very important, as we get nearly a million mobile pageviews a month (compared to nearly three million on desktop).

One thing that could help with us making sure pages look good on mobile is the mobile sidebar gadget from Meta (and English Wikipedia). It displays a right-hand side emulated view of the mobile skin. It's pretty easy to install.

Sam Wilson 10:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You can enable the mobile sidebar by putting these two lines into your vector.js:
mw.loader.load('//', 'text/css');
Sam Wilson 10:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Having the tool active for all namespaces is problematic when editing, if it is going to be that way, it needs to be collapsible. I would prefer the ability to toggle it on and off for it to be usable in an ongoing "checking" sense.
I agree. I think it's meant to do that, too, but the script seems to be a bit buggy. If there's interest, we could probably see about making it work better. Sam Wilson 07:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment we most definitely need to be ensuring that we have a sensible mobile view. Our issue is how do we coordinate that our needs are addressed. We need to have someone who has CSS expertise work with us to assist us to fix our errors. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • And it's not just mobile that will benefit; better-structured styling can help with epub generation too. Sam Wilson 07:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


While I have an ear, I posed a question at Wikisource talk:WikiProject Social media. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Did the Swiss constitution provide the model for the solution by the League of Nations to the Aaland Islands Dispute?[edit]

The Aaland Islands is a group of some 6000 islands situated between Finland and Sweeden approximately at the hieght of Stockholm. The Aaland Islands Dispute was the first of the issues not directly arising out of the WWI that was settled under the auspices of the League of Nations. Finland and the Aaland Islands were part of Russia from 1809 to 1917. Piror to that they were part of Sweden. At about the time when Finland i December 1917 declared itself independent the Aalanders expressed their wish to rejoin Sweden, basing that wish on their Swedish language and culture. Sweden strongly supported the Aalanders wish and Finland opposed it. The dispute eventually ended up with the newly formed League of Nations. A group of three rapporteurs was appointed and visited Stockholm, Helsinki and Mariehamn on the islands. One of the rapporteurs was former Swiss federal president Felix Calonder.

Finland had offered an autonomy to the Aalanders but that was rejected by the islanders. As a substitute to secession the rapporteurs in their report proposed that to the autonomy offered by Finland should be added certain guarantees such as: There should be restirictions in the rights of inhabitants of Main Land Finland to purchase land in the Aaland islands; franchise (in local elections) should be granted to newcomers after a stay of five years; Swedish should be the official language and the only language taught at school. The rapporteurs also sugested an extension to the demilitarisation which the island had as a result of the peace agreement in Paris after the Crimean War in 1856. Now, they suggested, the islands should also be neutralized during war time. The proposals by the rapporteurs were adopted as such by the League of Nations i Geneve in june 1921 and has remained more or less unchanged until today.

I would like to compare the gurantees proposed by the rapporteurs to the laws govering Swiss minorities/cantons in 1920. Is there a resemblance? Did these ideas come from the Swiss representative Felix Calonder?

J.R. Orjans Skarvgränd 4, AX-22100 Mariehamn, Åland

Tech News: 2017-34[edit]

18:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)